Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cantor Caves? Tweets Supprt for 'Smart' infrastructure spending.
http://twitter.com/#!/EricCantor ^ | 9-10-2011 | Eric Cantor

Posted on 09/10/2011 8:20:35 AM PDT by Maelstorm

http://twitter.com/#!/EricCantor

Eric Cantor (EricCantor) on Twitter


(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: cantor; jobs; sourcetitlenoturl; stimulus; tarp
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-86 last
To: arasina

Since you brought up Sarah Palin, I would point out that she supported the portion of the earlier stimulus package that dealt with infrastructure, she accepted it, and she said it would create jobs in Alaska.

So I wouldn’t use her to attack Cantor on infrastructure spending.


51 posted on 09/10/2011 9:38:09 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Nonstatist; NRG1973

I’ve seen no announcement of such a plan, so unless the poster was actually a high-ranking RNC official, I wouldn’t run off assuming they are correct.


52 posted on 09/10/2011 9:41:40 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: FromTheSidelines

“RINO” = I disagree with the last thing he said.


53 posted on 09/10/2011 9:42:39 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution By Angelo M. Codevilla from the July 2010 - August 2010 issue

Thanks for posting that link. I found it to be a very interesting and well-written article.

54 posted on 09/10/2011 9:43:05 AM PDT by arasina (So there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: FromTheSidelines

Again, I should read the thread before posting, you are right and said it better than I did.


55 posted on 09/10/2011 9:43:51 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: NRG1973
The GOP will have their own items to throw in the bill so the final total will be close to the $450 billion.

.. Am I suppose to believe theyll put their name on another stimulus package of that size? With Ozero in the weakened state hes right now ?The Tea Party will bail and sit home, expecially if the spending cuts are 10 years from now. Never going to happen, IMO

Cantor is just playing around, for PR purposes, I would suspect.

56 posted on 09/10/2011 9:44:37 AM PDT by Nonstatist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
I wasn't getting hysterical.

Sorry, I wasn't aiming the hysterical part at you. I agree with you that the infrastructure stuff is just code for union jobs. The hysterical part was aimed at others that seem to be hyperventilating at a single Cantor tweet.

57 posted on 09/10/2011 9:46:02 AM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: PhiloBedo

Yep unfortunately. I personally like Eric but this kind of crap is telegraphing the wrong message. It is clear to me that they are trying to avoid a reignition of the of the same thing that led up to 2010 and that speaks volumns aboid the goals of the GOP. It is clear that a majority of behind the curtain the power brokers don’t want the GOP to become continue to become the Tea Party party which is exactly what will happen if a replay of 2009-2010 occurs going into 2012. They want to manage things so that the GOP wins but not officially under the Tea Party banner.

Truthfully I still believe Cantor and others in leadership are trying to subtlely clear the way for Mitt Romney.

I don’t know for certain but the unspoken thread is fairly clear. They do not want a Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman or even a Rick Perry. They want to re-establish the establishment.

How else do you explain the no-brainer potential to turn this minime stimulus into a big boondoggle to hang around Obama’s neck?

I hope they realize that Obama is counting on a severe economic crisis next year to allow him to trap the GOP into another big spending TARP style mess.


58 posted on 09/10/2011 9:46:43 AM PDT by Maelstorm (Better to keep your enemy in your sights than in your camp expecting him to guard your back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

Why doesn’t the House pass the “American Jobs Bill” (as they would write it) since no bill as Obama speechified actually exists?


59 posted on 09/10/2011 9:47:12 AM PDT by KansasGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reily
Sarah Palin, advocate of the "crony Capitalist" meme, on infrastructure stimulus spending:
"On the whole these things that are good for the state we will appreciate those dollars coming as an addition to our economy, certainly the construction projects we are still looking forward to those because those are what actually create the jobs."
Since I presume you don't think Sarah Palin endaged in "crony capitalism", you must see that infrastructure spending isn't "crony capitalism".
60 posted on 09/10/2011 9:47:12 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Kahuna
I really don’t think that it’s so dang hard for the Republicans to craft a response to Obama’s “Jobs Bill” along the lines of.......We will study the legislation when it is written and scored by the budget office. We will attempt to find common ground on as much as possible, providing that all American’s will benefit and that long term job growth will be assured with it’s passage.

Nah, to many here that would be sign of capitulation and caving and being RINOs... When you get people calling Eric Cantor a RINO, you know you're way over-the-edge in terms of sanity!

61 posted on 09/10/2011 9:52:59 AM PDT by FromTheSidelines ("everything that deceives, also enchants" - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: CSI007
This is what Gov. Palin was talking about in her Iowa speech. Both sides are addicted to our money and they'll never take serious steps to control spending. Because there's nothing in it for them.
62 posted on 09/10/2011 9:55:06 AM PDT by rabidralph
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: NRG1973
[The Republican game plan is to give 0bama about 90% of what he wants in that bill. They will hold back on the 10% which is the worst. They will make sure that there are just enough Republican votes to pass the bill (ensuring that every Democrat must vote for it).]

Are you serious? The GOP plans to spend 1/2 trillion taxpayer $$$, $ that we don't have, to better position themselves for the 2012 election? EXACTLY what is WRONG with DC. And btw, it is a horrible strategy. The Tea Party will go 3rd Party if that's the game the GOP plans to play. That is outrageous. If the strategy you outlined is true, they really are just 2 sides of the same thieving, corrupt coin!

63 posted on 09/10/2011 9:56:46 AM PDT by KansasGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm
What in the hell is this?

Oh c'mon! You don't get it yet?

The differences between the wings of the ruling class are minor. They ALL believe certain things which are false, anti-human, and destructive to the Republic and to the Constitution.

Every last one of them. You place WAY too much reliance on the "R" brand.

But change is coming. Change is inevitable. You betcha. < wink >.

64 posted on 09/10/2011 10:00:11 AM PDT by Jim Noble (To live peacefully with credit-based consumption and fiat money, men would have to be angels.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
“RINO” = I disagree with the last thing he said.

Precisely. Too many conservatives have gone over the edge and become purely reactionary - which allows them to be even more manipulated. It's crazy. Sometimes spending is actually needed - repairing roads, bridges, and expanding airports seems like a good idea to me - just like replacing our military infrastructure as well.

If there's going to be any spending, then spend it on things that benefit ALL people, and build the nation and its economy - that's actual, hard infrastructure - not food stamps and subsidized housing and bailing out big union companies.

In fact, highways and airports ARE a Constitutional domain of the Federal Government - they are used for postal roads/delivery of mail, and per Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7 of the US Constitution - Congress gets to establish postal roads - roads (and I would assume ports as needed as well) for delivery of mail. That's the highways and airports.

Keep the infrastructure spending on these things - get rid of the social welfare spending that eats up 100% of the Federal Revenues and is actually unconstitutional.

65 posted on 09/10/2011 10:00:19 AM PDT by FromTheSidelines ("everything that deceives, also enchants" - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

The problem with infrastructue spending is that the interstate hwy system is finished and the need for new monstrous international airports is limited. Stadiums? No real need.

There is a need for maintenance but that too is limited. This is not the nineteen fifties.


66 posted on 09/10/2011 10:04:00 AM PDT by texmexis best
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm
When we cream the dems in 2012...ALL LEADERSHIP ROLES must be replaced in the senate and the house.

"So when we hear the leaders of the American Establishment declare war on the tea partiers, we would do well to remember that such movements are deeply imbedded in our national DNA, that those Establishment types owe their own status to such a movement, that the dreams of the tea partiers are shared not only by millions of American voters, but by freedom-seeking peoples in some very unexpected places, and that it is no accident to discover that a global movement in the name of freedom coincides with a global Great Awakening, with roots in America and its unique revolutionary tradition." Michael Ledeen

67 posted on 09/10/2011 10:15:53 AM PDT by shield (Rev 2:9 Woe unto those who say they are Judahites and are not, but are of the syna GOG ue of Satan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paradox

Geez, let’s kick him while he’s down.


68 posted on 09/10/2011 10:16:49 AM PDT by righttackle44 (I may not be much, but I raised a U.S. Marine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Cantor caves. Who among us is shocked? He was, is and continues to be a whiny azz country club republican.

These guys just don’t get it. Not one more penny on this stimulous nonsense. I made a $10 bet at lunch yesterday with my best friend that the Pubbies won’t give Barry another nickel for stimulous and now I’m getting worried that I’m going to lose. I never learn. LOL!


69 posted on 09/10/2011 10:25:28 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm
Don't worry...this is what Obama should have targeted in his first Porkulus...Cantor is saying he agrees with it. This gives them the opportunity to now discuss the details and Cantor will make a clear case of why the Fed Gov't should not target it toward union jobs which is what Obama wants to do.

Meanwhile, Cantor will be proposing a 20% deduction from income for small businesses. Lots of negotiating to come in which Obama liberal positions will be exposed and there will be more opportunity for his base to consider him as "weak" when he again has to back down.

70 posted on 09/10/2011 10:58:16 AM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: helpfulresearcher; All
Cantor was arguing that the Feds shouldn’t control the transportation money. He calls for taking transportation designated money out of the Feds hands and putting it in state hands.

Feral money getting sent back to States IS THE PROBLEM.

That is why we have RUNAWAY Feral government spending.

Congress should not send 1 red cent to States for anything.

It is not necessary. That is the lie. There is NO LOCAL PROJECT "TOO BIG" TO BE FUNDED LOCALLY. That is hogwash. But that is what congresscritters tell us.

The Feral government is insolvent right now by any sane accounting standard. Yet Congress continues to borrow. And send money back home to key industries in their districts.
71 posted on 09/10/2011 11:14:38 AM PDT by PieterCasparzen (We need to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

The infrastructure spending bill is already written and sitting in the transportation committee of the Senate. It is S.942, submitted by Patty Murray, designed to fund multi-modal infrastructure projects like the one her home state of WA, the Gateway Pacific Coal Terminal.

That’s not the interesting part though, the company that is building this terminal is SSA, the same company of longshoremen who have recently been in the news for the union violence in Longview,WA.

Oh, and it gets better. Patty Murray’s husband is a lifetime employee of SSA, which is fully owned by CARRIX, and Goldman Sachs is the majority stake holder in CARRIX.


72 posted on 09/10/2011 11:36:32 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: helpfulresearcher

Thank you for the clarification, but putting some of that money in the hands of certain states is not necessarily a good thing, either.

As I posted previously, the infrastructure spending bill is already written and is sitting in committee in the Senate. It was submitted by Patty Murray, Dick Durbin and Susan Collins. It is designed to fund Gateway projects around the country, many of which are not popular with local residents, and the states who have been requesting the money are being denied funds for punitive reasons. Those states are South Carolina and Wisconsin. Big surprise, considering who submitted the bill.

South Carolina wants dredging of their port and the bill excludes dredging. Wisconsin was dropped from the funding by Ray LaHood.

The infrastructure and transportation bill doesn’t really create any “family wage”jobs anyway. It pays for permitting, environmental studies, land purchase and even interest on the start up money, but no real jobs. It’s just more of the same old, same old that we have had from the Obama administration since day one.

If he gives the money to the states for the projects that the people don’t want, what good is that?


73 posted on 09/10/2011 11:45:24 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: FromTheSidelines
...Sometimes spending is actually needed - repairing roads, bridges, and expanding airports...

...In fact, highways and airports ARE a Constitutional domain of the Federal Government - they are used for postal roads/delivery of mail, and per Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7 of the US Constitution - Congress gets to establish postal roads - roads (and I would assume ports as needed as well) for delivery of mail. That's the highways and airports.


Let's take an example. NJ. We have Newark Airport. It's not a postal road. It's primarily for commercial air travel, it also moves freight (many flights move freight along with passengers, but people don't know that). Ok, do you have any idea how much wealth and how many large corporations are in NJ ? Now, I can hit NYC with a rock from Newark airport. Any idea how much wealth is flowing around there ? Look at how many large infrastructure projects in the NYC-metro area are funded by a wonderful little thing call bonds. NJ issues bonds, NYC does, there are so many public utility/transportation/infrastructure bonds issued it would make one's head spin. Investors - big funds, instituttional investors - the whole of the American capital markets - they all jump in and buy these bonds.

So if I need $50 billion to put in an airport, do I need Feral government "grant" money ? No. But if it's offered to me for free, in addition to all the other capital I raise to build my airport, do i take it ? YES ! ABSOLUTELY.

And I say - THANK YOU CONGRESSMAN _______ . Me and and my investors thank you for the financial handout that you gave us that improvied our ROI - for FREE ! And by the way, all the UNION guys, they send their best as well. They'll be sure to do some legwork come next election, and go out and crack some heads, or drive vanloads of people to vote for you, the bringer of free money to our district. Ssshhhh, we just won't tell the rubes voting for you that it's because of our FREE money scam that their taxes start to get oppressive the minute they start having any comfortable amount of income, and our whole little government tax-and-regulate-cabal is the reason why their jobs have gone overseas.

The Congress has INSINUATED ITSELF into the whole "infrastructure" industry.

If NJ used IT'S OWN money to pay for Route 80 within NJ, then, when it got into PA, PA used IT'S OWN money to maintain Route 80 within PA, etc..... it would be very affordable. It is very possible. The Feral government has many smart people thinking that building a highway is like building a space ship - only governments can possibly afford it. Wrong. The private sector has MORE MONEY than the Feral government. It has to - that's where the Feral government gets IT'S money from. The only reason the government had to fund the space program is because it did not have a reasonable payoff at that time - it did not make economic sense. It was a political effort, "let's prove we can do this" but far before the technology was cheap enough and the uses were there to make it worthwhile.

Is it Constitutional ? Absolutely not. Post roads were needed only because, again, there was no earthly reason why businesses at the time would create roads in certain places where they were needed for the mail to get through. Mind you, these were dirt roads, horse and buggy trails, not spaceships and airports. Should the postal system be run efficiently ? Of course. That's why much of the trucking they need is OUTSOURCED to guys with trucks who want to make a buck. This clause is merely saying that Congress is permitted to fund road building for the Post Office if the private sector has not already built roads where the Post Office needs them and there is not earthly reason why they would build the roads needed, given that getting the mail to that dude living way up on the mountain is the only reason a road is needed up on the mountain. That's the opposite of saying Congress can and must build all interestate roads, used for private sector passenger and shipping traffice, just because a few times a day a Post Office vehicle drives over that same public road.

Of course, nowadays almost every house has a road leading to it - for private sector reasons. So, plainly speaking, the road-building phase of the country - IS OVER !

What we really see here is the States that keep re-electing the same Congressmen over and over, so their Congressmen have SENIORITY and become POWERFUL COMMITTEE CHAIRS, are more effective at wrangling around other Congresscritters and getting more Feral funds sent to their own state than other States who don't have such finely-tuned State political machines. So we've been having a 150-year race to see who can bilk the Feral government out of the most money. And where does it get it's money from ? Well, the old slick willy congresscritter just smiles that smile, and shrugs, and says well, I guess we just need to raise more taxes. But I'm a man of the people - I will just tax those evil rich folks !

We all know the drill...

IMHO.
74 posted on 09/10/2011 11:52:39 AM PDT by PieterCasparzen (We need to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: All

Any and all congresscritters who openly say they want to send Feral dollars (that were ripped out of people’s paychecks) back to States are NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION, THEY’RE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

Those who want infrastructure built - if it is so NEEDED in the their State - then it should be WORTHWHILE for THAT STATE to FLOAT BONDS to PAY FOR THE STINKIN’ PROJECT.

Why should my State of New Jersey ask people from MINNESOTA, OR NEW MEXICO, OR TEXAS - TO BUILD IMPROVEMENTS TO THE AIRPORTS IN NEW JERSEY - OR NJ BRIDGES ?????

WHY ????

If NJ roads and bridges are falling apart - NJ needs to maintain them - or it will see it’s commerce suffer.

If Texas maintains it’s roads better and attracts more workers and businesses to their State - then I guess NJ better gets it’s rear in gear if it wants to compete.


75 posted on 09/10/2011 11:59:56 AM PDT by PieterCasparzen (We need to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
I don't want to get into a huge discussion on this, but I have seen in the past (and I am sure I will continue to see!) a lot of so-called “infrastructure work” being done seemly because the government is there handing it out! Does this employ people how might be unemployed maybe! But it also sucks money out of the economy so there is lost investment opportunity that might otherwise be employed in jobs that not only have some permanence but add directly to the over-all productivity of the economy. I am always skeptical of these claims that we as a nation need “infrastructure investment” there always seems to be enough local public money laying around when there is the need to a new sports complex. (Full disclosure I am a sports fan!) I assume you are trying to bait me into a “for Palin - against Palin” argument. Sorry I am not interested. Crony capitalism is practiced by both parties just much much more so by the Rats.
76 posted on 09/10/2011 12:47:21 PM PDT by Reily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Reily

I don’t like public stadiums. I also don’t like public financing of private stadiums, although it’s better than public stadiums. Then there is tax breaks to someone to bring a team to a state — that’s like giving tax breaks to any company, so they have to be weighed on a case by case basis.

When I speak of “good infrastructure” spending, I am talking about items which need to be either built or repaired anyway, that we’d normally wait until we had the money for, but which if we spend the money now, we won’t have to spend it later.

So for example, if there is a bridge that has to be replaced in the next 5 years, starting the work now rather than waiting 3 years could stimulate the economy, and we’ll get the money back when we DON’T have to do the work 3 years from now. The hope being that 3 years from now we’ll be in a recovery and won’t need the government work.

Adding lanes to overcrowded roads, or building new miles of highway where needed, are both valid federal tasks, and contribute both to extra labor, and to economic growth because people who spend less time on the roads spend more time being productive.

Fixing existing government buildings that are falling apart, or building a new facility in a better location could also be “good” — like moving an agency from an expensive lease in Arlington to an owned building out in a cheap county in Maryland or Virginia — not only do we get a boost from building, we save money on the lease, and then we get cars off of crowded highways.

The infrastructure projects have to be “smartly” chosen. I don’t trust Obama to do this — he’ll build things with forced union labor in places to pay his political donors. Unfortunately, the “no earmarks” push will make it hard for the republicans to properly target infrastructure spending, since that is what “earmarks” are — spending targetted to the specific projects the legislature believes are important.

This is why INhofe was opposed to the earmark legislation. He knew SOMEONE was going to choose what projects were built, and felt it was better for the congress to do that than let Obama do it.


77 posted on 09/10/2011 12:58:48 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen
Why should my State of New Jersey ask people from MINNESOTA, OR NEW MEXICO, OR TEXAS - TO BUILD IMPROVEMENTS TO THE AIRPORTS IN NEW JERSEY - OR NJ BRIDGES ?????

Because a lot of those airports and highways and bridges are Federal assets - they're owned and governed by the Federal Goverment. At least out past the original 13 colonies (see the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, clause 17).

Why should a State get stuck repairing and maintaining a Federal road? Why should they have to pick up the bill for a Federal asset? Rather, the Feds should spend their money maintaining their own properties and assets - and stop trying to buy people with giveaways and freebies.

78 posted on 09/10/2011 2:51:48 PM PDT by FromTheSidelines ("everything that deceives, also enchants" - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
In principle I agree.

However I have rarely seen “smartly chosen” in action.
Usually its chosen based on which constituents waves the most campaign funds or helps legislator out in other less obvious but "financially rewarding" ways. And I have seen this done by both parties though the Rats are by far the worse and utterly hypocritical about it! My favorite two recent examples are Chelsea Clinton and Rahm Emanuel. Chelsea went from receiving a liberal arts degree from Brown to a 6 figure Wall Street job. The ink was barely dry on her diploma. Then there is Rahm who went from Congress to Wall Street and was reported to have made a cool $24 million there. Now tell me what investment acumen did either of them pick up either as a Brown liberal arts major or as a Rat "Wall Street-Hating (at least publicly!)" congressman? I am sure I can find GOP examples, but I find those two be particularly egregious because of the shear Rat hypocrisy!

Also I am not necessarily opposed to earmarks, earmarks are a micro-drop in the federal spending bucket compared to entitlements. Ranting about earmarks is the same as ranting about federal salaries; makes everyone feel good but doesn't address the spending problem. The problem is "entitlements" and Ryan is the only one who has attempted to address that, but I digress. My original comment was based on my disgust of personally witnessing the "gimmie gimmie" attitudes of some so-called local GOP supporters. It bothered me so much I never returned to local meetings. And I am sure the "Gimmie crowd" has elbowed and out-shouted their way to first in line to Cantor's ear. Hence his statements.
79 posted on 09/10/2011 3:03:36 PM PDT by Reily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

I thought we were out of money and had to hack social security! Goes to show what I have always said. These GOP socialist idiots will cut Social Security to please wall street and then turn around and spend even more money on every other whim that passes by.

They are incompetent liars.


80 posted on 09/10/2011 3:48:41 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

I read the long article that was referenced to by someone on here. It is spot on! Folks, it is drawing near that we have to ditch the GOP and start a Constitutional Party!


81 posted on 09/10/2011 5:02:32 PM PDT by gbscott1954 (Sarah 2012!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: gbscott1954
I read the long article that was referenced to by someone on here. It is spot on! Folks, it is drawing near that we have to ditch the GOP and start a Constitutional Party!

No.

The GOP ruling class needs to be forced to form its own third party of "moderates."

The GOP belongs to Sarah Palin now. The "moderates" just haven't figured it out yet.

82 posted on 09/10/2011 5:12:00 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Palin is coming, and the Tea Party is coming with her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: FromTheSidelines
Why should my State of New Jersey ask people from MINNESOTA, OR NEW MEXICO, OR TEXAS - TO BUILD IMPROVEMENTS TO THE AIRPORTS IN NEW JERSEY - OR NJ BRIDGES ?????

Because a lot of those airports and highways and bridges are Federal assets - they're owned and governed by the Federal Goverment. At least out past the original 13 colonies (see the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, clause 17).

Why should a State get stuck repairing and maintaining a Federal road? Why should they have to pick up the bill for a Federal asset? Rather, the Feds should spend their money maintaining their own properties and assets - and stop trying to buy people with giveaways and freebies.


New Jersey has 431 miles of Feral government highways.

Texas has over 3,200 miles of Feral government highways.

New Jersey has a total road mileage of over 38,000 miles. 2,324 miles belongs to NJDOT. 404 belong to one of the thug-controlled Authorities. 6,439 belong to one of it's 21 counties. 29,020 belong to municipalities. 649 belong to parks.

Some exhorbitant amount, perhaps half (the State budgets are presented, like all government budgets, in insanely idiotic presentations designed to obfuscate what they're really doing) of the State's transportation money comes from Feral government sources. The total, however, is perhaps somewhere around 10% of the entire State budget. So if the State if NJ just inhaled and tightened it's belt, it certainly could get by without Feral highway funds. But so far, the State Legislature, Governor and Congressmen have never in it's entire history chosen to abandon sucking as much money as possible out of the Feral government.

So thanks, other 49 States (or is it 56 ?). We're really all doing the same thing, right ?

Sounds great, except the Feral government is sucking our will to live with it's Feral regulations. And it's borrowing 43 cents, perhaps 50 by now, out of every dollar it "gives" to us.

I guess if we want to be honest, each State is like a crackhead, except they're addicted to Feral slush money. That crack/money feels sooooo good. Even though it's about ready to blow up in a Treasury debt bubble. Who cares, it feels soooooo good.
83 posted on 09/10/2011 6:07:23 PM PDT by PieterCasparzen (We need to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

So, of the 431 Federal highway miles in NJ, the Federal Government shouldn’t pay to maintain any of them?

That’s the thing - I’m OK with the Government spending on maintenance of critical infrastructure like roads and airports. If there’s too much spending, then cut something else - not the road, bridge, and airport maintenance of its own assets.


84 posted on 09/10/2011 6:24:04 PM PDT by FromTheSidelines ("everything that deceives, also enchants" - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: All

Consider Denver International Airport. Wound up costing just under $5 billion. That size project could EASILY be funded with private capital; I just looked very quickly, it looked like a variety of participants. But at $5 billion, that’s not too big a project for private sector capital.

And voila, the financial reports are here (click on Financial Reports, Yes I understand, then dowload the pdf at Annual 2010:

http://business.flydenver.com/

The thing is making money.

Big projects do not have to be funded by the Feral government because they are too big. If they make sense financially, they can be built and operated by the private sector. No government cost, no government risk. Private sector investment, private sector takes the risk instead.

The private sector has simply been trained to always look for free giveaway Feral money.

Does the Federal government have a role in developing rules for air transportation, allocating radio frequencies, air traffic control, etc., certainly. Money from an already insolvent Feral government that’s half borrowed - that’s just an economic drag on everyone.

The myth is that things that “too big” for the private sector need to be funded by government, but in truth the private sector has, in total, more capital than the government. It just allocates it much more wisely than the government. If you have a big project that’s not really needed, or some new technology that’s not economically viable - you get some government stooges to make up some heroic story and raid the public treasury to fund your project. If it fails, it was a “government” project - so you don’t have to pay them back !


85 posted on 09/10/2011 6:36:37 PM PDT by PieterCasparzen (We need to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: FromTheSidelines; All

I’m say they constitute about 1% of NJ road mileage.

They also constitute about 1% of all Federal road mileage.

But the Feral government is funding maybe HALF of NJ’s transportation budget. About a billion dollars, perhaps closer to $2 billion.

Seems like too much Federal money going to NJ for 431 out of 38,000 miles of road...

If you look through the projects in the one link I had - there are all sorts of bogus projects in the NJDOT plan. This is slush money pure and simple.

What I’m saying is easy: NJ should simply take over the 431 miles - maintain it just like the do the other 38,000 miles of their own roads. And then take NO money from the Feds. The Feral government would save over $1 billion EVERY YEAR from here on out !

If that was forced on NJ by Congress NJ would just... get along. We’d survive. We’d just have to decide how much garbage we were going to cut out of our Transportation fantasyland spending. I bet we’d cut. Trubble is, the mobsters - sorry, ex-mobsters - would NOT want to have their juicy contracts cut. Ouch.

Here’s an interesting link...

According to the article (I’d have to look it up)... my WONDERFUL Congressman Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) recently proposed a bill to allow states to opt out of Federal funding !!!!!!!

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/transportation/highway-funding


86 posted on 09/10/2011 6:52:53 PM PDT by PieterCasparzen (We need to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-86 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson